Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Neonchameleon]

Definitely! I'm just getting bad vibes from certain peeps (not you). No need to perpetuate that stuff.

I think you're on my Xbox Live account, actually. We'll talk during a game sometime if I see you on.

Sorry if I've been a bit hard. I often am and it's not intended to be personal.

 

[P1NBACK]

Sorry if I've been a bit hard. I often am and it's not intended to be personal.

No, you're good man.

We got heated, and I had my part in that too, but you kept it to debate instead of personal attacks, insults and inflammatory accusations.

 

[Herschel]

Alternatively C: The system is too big and bulky to tweak. I'd hate to add a new weapon to Rolemaster for example.

Oh no you didn't. You did NOT just bust on the all-mighty Chartmaster!

4E isn't that big and bulky. Then again, I think RAW is an absolutely STUPID acronym and term because it's complete nonsense. EVERYTHING can be interpreted, just look at any Supreme Court decision. That's why I don't worry about it. I never let the overall rule structure get in the way of fun in any edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Cut the PA bullcrap and man up. Your bias is not fact, period. You get out of a game what you put in to it, just like everything else in life. If you have a bad attitude about it or are apathetic about it, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy but for you and you alone. That's the whole point. Your experience does not mean the game is wrong, it means you're playing it in a way not consistent with the way others are. That would be fine except you claim that your feeling is universal in its direction which it quite clearly is not.

That is true, but it is hardly the whole truth. If it was the whole truth, no one would ever spend the money on new systems. Again, Monopoly is cheaper, and comes with minis.

Yes, what you put into it matters. But so does system.


RC

 

[Imaro]

If you feel that having a lot of the tricks codified for you ahead of time limits your creativity then it generally means either:

A: The powers encompass enough of what you want to do you don't need to look elsewhere. That's good game design.
or
B: You don't have the creative desire and/or capacity to look beyond what's on the page.

That's not a system flaw, that's a personally chosen interaction with the game.

Or...

D. It's the most tactically sound (though not necessarily the most interesting or exciting narratively) action available. Especially in an rpg where tactical combat has become front and center and group dependencies and interactions are stressed.

 

[Herschel]

Or...

...and group dependencies and interactions are stressed.

Emphasis mine, but you said it. Group dependencies and interactions are STRESSED. In other words, it's designed to have you work WITH other players. That isn't a barrier to role playing, that's an incentive.

That you feel tactical combat is "front & center" is not accurate from a game standpoint, only a rules standpoint. They specifically and intentionally left the non-combat skills more open in order to facilitate flexibility, creativity and open interaction.

 

[Imaro]

Emphasis mine, but you said it. Group dependencies and interactions are STRESSED. In other words, it's designed to have you work WITH other players. That isn't a barrier to role playing, that's an incentive.

Not when it's based around interacting with them on an optimal tactical level as opossed to an organic or narrative level.

That you feel tactical combat is "front & center" is not accurate from a game standpoint, only a rules standpoint. They specifically and intentionally left the non-combat skills more open in order to facilitate flexibility, creativity and open interaction.

I think you misunderstood me, I don't mean tactical combat is front and center to everything else in 4e... I meant it is the type of combat (and I suppose gamist would be a better way to characterize it) that is front and center to 4e as opposed to something like LoA (Fate) or PDQ that is narrative based or Runequest which has a more simulationist leanings in combat. this in turn means that if a decision is not tactically sound in regards tothe game rules you and your group are more likely to be punished for making it.

As far as the other things you commented on such as skills... that's a whol other topic that would be better to address seperately to keep my posts clear.

 

[LostSoul]

The more I think about this I think it boils down to "at what level?" I think pemerton makes some good points, here - the difference between wanting to know that a character tries to physically harm another creature and wanting to know the angle of the sword cut they make, the bodily manoeuvre used and the justification of any and all subsequent effects is one of degree, not fundamental quality. Is it sufficient to know simply that the character is good at this stuff and, depending to some extent on chance, may get certain results from doing it - or do we need to know how and why they achieve these results in detail? And, if the latter, what specific detail, exactly? In the former, aspects of the setting - that this sort of result is possible, that the situation is suitable to achieve such a result and that this character is good at getting these results, for example - are important. The only difference, perhaps, is that it is the player's decisions of character intent, rather than their justification of their desired result, that has effect.

That is food for thought! I think you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] are right - it is a matter of degrees. I don't care about how much and what kind of food or drink a PC consumed before the fight, even though I know that would have an effect on its outcome. (I might add a -2 penalty if the character is drunk, but that's about it.) Thinking about it, that fine detail of actions is a personal preference of mine; it's probably why I've always preferred Palladium Fantasy's combat system over D&D's. (Yes, seriously! )

I think I might have to change my point of view that focus on the real-world things at the table - the battlemat, the minis - takes away from focus on the fictional details; those are representations of the fiction, in as much detail as most people want. I just want more!

Here's an example of a combat from Tuesday in my hacked system:

[sblock=Hacked]Example: Playing on Tuesday. The PCs are in "Stormwatch"¹, which is a city made of huge towers built into a basalt cliff face. The PCs are crossing an open-air bridge on the third level, 120 feet or so above the ground, with no railings².

Dhalia Doomfey, an emaciated Fighter/Warlock in the AD&D multiclass style, was alerted to danger on the bridge thanks to her almost-supernatural martial awareness³. The other PC, Kronos the Exsanguinator, opened the far door using Mage Hand. Dhalia threw a grappling hook into the far room, catching hold of the door, and the two carefully crossed.

Suddenly a grappling hook appeared from out of nowhere and latched onto Kronos⁴. A leather-clad woman was hanging onto the side of the tower using some kind of magic. She yanked and tugged on the rope, dragging Kronos off the bridge, but the wily mage held fast onto Dhalia's rope and used it to swing onto a bridge beneath them. As Kronos fell, Dhalia grabbed onto the NPC's rope, braced herself, and pulled with all the might her Gauntlets of Ogre Power could give. The NPC came tumbling from the wall⁵.

As Kronos ran to get back into the fight, the NPC drew her blade defensively and rose, then leapt off the bridge to the tower wall, where her Spider Climb spell would allow her to latch on. Dhalia grabbed her sword hand before she could slip away and followed up with a knee to her chest, pinning the would-be assassin - half-off the bridge, one hand on the tower wall, her sword hand in Dhalia's crushing grip.⁶

Dhalia forced the NPC's sword to her throat while calling for her surrender, but the NPC was saved by her leather armour⁷. The NPC whispered a Sleep spell but Dhalia easily resisted.

1 - Stormwatch was an established city name in the campaign, but I am using Vornheim for it.
2 - I didn't know from the map of the tower if the bridge had a railing, so I rolled 1d6 to determine how much. I got a 1 - no railing.
3 - The Invisible NPC rolled a check to hide, but didn't hit Dhalia's passive score - 10 + 1/2 level + stat + skill, Martial Awareness the skill in this case. Dhalia could not actually see her, but I said, "The hairs on your neck stand up; there's danger out there." This is a feat that would not have been possible at Heroic tier - she would have needed to look out and around - but Dhalia is a Paragon tier character and is almost supernatural.
4 - The NPC made a check (level + 3) against Kronos' Ref defence and succeeded.
5 - The NPC made a check (level + 3) against Kronos' Fort, succeeded; Kronos didn't need to roll anything, because his action - swinging down - wasn't opposed; Dhalia made a check (1/2 level + Str mod + her Gauntlets of Ogre Power skill + a bonus for bracing herself) against the NPC's Fort - with a bonus for Spider Climb - and succeeded.
6 - The NPC took a defensive action - drawing her sword and leaping away, which netted her a +4 bonus to her Fort defence; Dhalia made the same check as above, this time with a +2 because the NPC was on the ground and a +2 because this action built directly off her previous action. Dhalia succeeded easily.
7 - This time Dhalia's bonus for building off previous actions was +4.[/sblock]

Here's the same thing, but in 4E's general rules:

[sblock=Regular 4E]I draw the map and tell players that it's 120' to the ground. I make the Stealth check for the NPC against the Passive Perception, and fail. The PCs notice the invisible NPC.

The NPC wins Init and throws the grappling hook, for which she has a special power - Ranged 5, Level + 3 vs. Fort, Hit: 1d6+4 damage, Pull 3 and Grabbed. She hits. Kronos is Pulled, but makes his hazardous terrain saving throw to avoid falling.

Dhalia grabs the rope and attempts to pull the NPC adjacent to her using an action the rules don't cover; I cast the attack as a check, saying it does no damage but instead Pull 5 and Prone. Dhalia attacks using Str vs. Will (because of the Spider Climb) and succeeds.

Kronos drops down to the next level using their rope.

The NPC rises from Prone and Climbs away, triggering an AoO. Dhalia misses, then moves adjacent to the NPC and Grabs her.

The NPC casts Sleep and misses; Dhalia takes an AoO and misses. Dhalia makes an Intimidate check calling for her surrender and as DM I make a judgement call that, even though the NPC isn't Bloodied, she will surrender on a successful roll. Dhalia succeeds.[/sblock]

I can see how the rules - positioning, terrain, spells cast, the ropes, the powers, actions taken - are all part of the fiction in 4E; what they are missing from my hack are those fine details. How does Dhalia notice the invisible NPC? How does Kronos save from falling off the bridge? How does Dhalia Grab the NPC? What is she doing when she takes her AoO? I really want those fine details!

Heh - good point! I should have said "all of them", maybe...

Basically, I enjoy both games where the action is described in a very general, abstract way (with the in-game outcome described in an arbitrary manner post-facto) and games where the action is detailed down to the intended sword cut angle (Riddle of Steel, anyone?) before the outcome is determined.

I also enjoy both games where the rules define the world-setting "physics" for both the GM and the players, with GM discretion dialled to a minimum and tactical competition to the fore, and games of collaborative world-building, where the world "physics" is defined by mutually agreed aesthetics, subject only to consistency with what has been settled upon before, during play.

I tend not to enjoy games where the in-game outcome of an action doesn't have an influence on resolution of any future actions. If I use my spear to push back a kobold with a rusty dagger, and the fact that I pushed him back and should have some kind of reach advantage doesn't change future resolution, I stop describing what I'm doing in-game.

 

[pemerton]

LostSoul, I think your description of the 4e variant is, perhaps, a little sparse - because of your footnotes in your first description, it's a bit hard to tell how much of the original narative is essential to the resolution and how much colour - for example, why does Martial Awareness cause the hairs to rise on the back of the neck when a successful roll is made, but Passive Perception not? And presumably the grappling hook can appear out of nowhere, Kronos be a wily mage and so on in regular 4e. The spider climb would also give a bonus to resist being pulled off the wall in 4e, because it would mean that the climbing target doesn't grant combat advantage.

The main thing that I can see in your hack description that clearly wouldn't come into play in regular 4e would be the description of the grabbing of the sword hand.

I also agree with your comment about earlier outcomes affecting subsequent resolutions - in 4e this tends to be confined to the imposition of conditions or to the resolution of forced movement, which is not all that fine grained.

 

[pemerton]

P1NBACK, I don't think you're edition warring but I do disagree with some of your characterisation of 4e.

How is that possibly true? You need to know how you are attacking to determine damage die, no? You can't just say, "I attack" without some sort of description, like, "with my axe..." and get a damage result.

<snip>

4E can occur like this: "Footwork Lure, Roll d20, Slide 1, Roll for damage." Success! "Oh, cool, I attack him with my sword and he falls forward."

<snip>

"I swing my axe." Is as simple as it goes. But, guess what? It's fiction. And, now we know what rules to apply: d20 attack, using axe damage dice.

"I swing my axe" is a narrative... So, if you are required to say, "I swing my axe" well, that's fiction isn't it?

4e requires the same amount of fiction. No fighter power, for example, can be used without specifying the weapon used to execute the power. So your Footwork Lure example isn't entirely accurate.

Of course, in practice in AD&D I think that if everyone knows the fighter uses a two-handed sword the weapon description might not be reiterated every time. Likewise in 4e.

Also, the description of the Fireball spell in Moldvay Basic is almost identical to 4e - it simply gives the spell name, and states that creatures in a certain radius take a certain amount of damage from a missile of fire that explodes into a sphere of fire. 4e reformats that description. If it was obvious to everyone playing Moldvay Basic what, in the fiction, casting fireball involved - and that it might set fire to books even though nowhere is that hinted at except in the description of the spell as a Fireball - then I don't see why 4e should be expected to produce a different result.